PM to appoint Tory insiders to Senate

August1991 · August 28, 2009

Because the loss of 130-odd thousand dollars a year is a rather substantial personal inconvenience.

For some people, 130,000/year matters (in fact it's far more, but I quibble). For other people, it doesn't. In fact, I suspect that for people typically appointed to the Senate, merely being appointed senator is status enough.

Even if Harper can get self-sacrificing Senators, people who say this kind of change will require a consititutional amendment are right; the provinces won't let it fly without their consent.

Once again, i'm going to trust Harper's judgment against the Supreme Court. Trudeau managed to change Senator terms. If Trudeau could do it, I reckon Harper can do it - assuming he has Senate support.

The bigger question is an elected Senate. I'm not sure that it's a good idea. I prefer a Senate nominated by provincial governments with eight-year renewable terms. Dunno.

Edited August 28, 2009 by August1991

g_bambino · August 28, 2009

Trudeau managed to change Senator terms. If Trudeau could do it, I reckon Harper can do it - assuming he has Senate support.

Actually, it was Pearson's ministry that oversaw the implementation of the age-75 limit on Senators. He did so in 1965, before there was a constitutional amending formula requiring the input of the provinces. Harper's going to need much more than your reconing to get approval for such drastic shifts in the balance of parliament.

Riverwind · August 28, 2009

Because the loss of 130-odd thousand dollars a year is a rather substantial personal inconvenience.

Some people can afford to put conviction ahead of income.

BTW - do you have an exact clause in the constitution which guarantees terms til age 75 or it is simply one of those unwritten rules? If it is the latter then I don't think the provinces will be able to compell the federal government to keep it.

g_bambino · August 28, 2009

Some people can afford to put conviction ahead of income.

Well, I hope they put rationality before conviction.

[D]o you have an exact clause in the constitution which guarantees terms til age 75 or it is simply one of those unwritten rules?

Constitution Act 1965.

_{[ed. to add]}

Edited August 28, 2009 by g_bambino

jdobbin · August 28, 2009

Reform of the Senate depends on sitting senators. As a first step in this reform, Harper had no choice but to appoint people who would vote for Senate reform.

It cannot be done unilaterally. Please read your Constitution.

IMV, this is the key point. Liberal PMs (Chretien/Martin - even Trudeau) appointed senators who defended the status quo. Harper is the first PM to appoint senators who state that they will oppose the status quo.

If they all resign in 8 years then you might be right. There is no law that says they can't stay on and nothing to force them out. If Harper tries to put in a unilateral law, he will be challenged in the Supreme Court by the provinces.

My guess is that if the the court says there is no 8 year provision that some of these senators can tell the PM to take a flying leap.

Trudeau managed to get through the 75 year limit to Senators. (Before Trudeau, Senators sat for life, even if they were senile, drooling, wheeled in 97 year olds.) How did Trudeau do this? Well, the Senate is Liberal.

An amendment to the Constitution. And please get your PMs right. It was Pearson. And he was a Protestant if that is important to you. He also made this amendment in a minority government. So you know what the means? It means that some other party in the House of Commons approved the change before it moved to the Senate.

Has Harper attempted this? No. He has made up a rule of 8 years and hopes the people he appoints will abide by it. There is no law to compel them to.

Please read your Constitution before so brashly suggesting that that an amendment isn't necessary. I don't see an province accepting unilateral action.

Harper wants to make a similar change and to do it, he needs the support of the Senate. So, in Liberal style, Harper is stacking the Senate. Unlike Trudeau, Harper does not benefit from a "natural governing party" control of the Senate.

Harper, unlike Trudeau, doesn't want an amendment to the Constitution.

Harper has said he won't trample on the provinces jurisdiction. This is a shared jurisdiction. He cannot force a law on the Senate.

Sadly for Canada, too many Senators are Liberal partisan hacks.

And now you are supporting Tory partisan hacks.

This Senate reform is worthy but it reminds me that Harper is playing to his strong suit - insider WASP intricacy. I would prefer a Catholic conservative. I want a populist conservative PM who can explain policies for ordinary people.
Harper is too intricate, too much an insider..

I don't think you get the Constitution.

Edited August 28, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · August 28, 2009

BTW - do you have an exact clause in the constitution which guarantees terms til age 75 or it is simply one of those unwritten rules? If it is the latter then I don't think the provinces will be able to compell the federal government to keep it.

The Constitution Act of 1965 is what states it.

To change it requires a constitutional amendment. Or do you disagree?

Harper can hope that Senators volunteer to follow but is there really anything to compel them? No.

Riverwind · August 28, 2009

Constitution Act 1965.

Perhaps Harper's strategy is to piss as many people off as possible with blatent appointment of political hacks so he can turn around say "if you don't like I do have another option...." Edited August 28, 2009 by Riverwind

jdobbin · August 28, 2009

Perhaps Harper's strategy is to piss as many people off as possible with blatent appointment of political hacks so he can turn around say "if you don't like I do have another option...."

Election?

Riverwind · August 28, 2009

Election?

More likely a long term strategy to undermine the credibility of the senate and stoke the appetite for reform. It is also possible that he can't find 'qualified' conservative minded people willing to take the job so he is reduced to appointing hacks (i.e. I suspect many people who would be received as good candidates are not interested in the job and don't care about the money).

BTW - I agree with you and bambino that changing senator terms will require an amendment and there is no way that Harper's cannot know this. So he must be up to something else.

It is also possible that tory insiders have decided that they don't want to be martyrs on an issue that the public does not care that much about (i.e. they can't leave the seats vacant and if they cannot find enough star candidates to fill the seats then you have to turn to your buddies).

Edited August 28, 2009 by Riverwind

Wild Bill · August 28, 2009

Nobody's yet answered my question: Why would a Senator vote to diminish his own job security?

Because his party will guarantee his income from other sources, that's why!

It's always been that way. Witness the negotiating for someone to give up his seat to allow a non-elected party leader to get in the House.

g_bambino · August 28, 2009

Because his party will guarantee his income from other sources, that's why!
It's always been that way. Witness the negotiating for someone to give up his seat to allow a non-elected party leader to get in the House.

I'd thought of that; but it seems such a tactic would only work for one or two individuals, not 50!

waldo · August 28, 2009

More likely a long term strategy to undermine the credibility of the senate and stoke the appetite for reform.

putting aside the patronage appointments, clearly... appointing Jacques Demers counters any such loss of credibility :blink:

a guy self-described as "never being interested in politics"... a guy self-described as being "functionally illiterate"

exactly what... is the bar for measuring the undermining of credible senate appointments... regardless of political party?

Keepitsimple · August 28, 2009

The Constitution Act of 1965 is what states it.
To change it requires a constitutional amendment. Or do you disagree?

Harper can hope that Senators volunteer to follow but is there really anything to compel them? No.

The key statement from 1982 is:

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

B. the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

I can see where there is a very valid agument that it does not require Constitutional changes to effectively introduce an 8 year term because this does not alter the powers of the Senate as a whole.

The current method of selection - which the Constitution says cannot change - is appointment by the Prime Minister. Direct election of Senators would effectively remove the ability to appoint. I don't really see a way around this from a Constitutional viewpoint. If individual provinces, like Alberta, are willing to hold elections, that is their right but there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite for that......and even though that process would remove much of the partisanship in appointments.....in my mind, it alters the "spirit" of the method of selection - even though the PM still has the power to appoint or not appoint.

One step at a time - term limits can be argued in the Supreme Court, if necessary. The rest is very tough.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Keepitsimple

madmax · August 28, 2009

Harper's playing within the rules with the cards he's been dealt. It must be frustrating for the Liberals to be on the opposite end of the patronage game.

Yes, he plays up Senate Reform to keep people interested, and gets what he really wants. Partizan Hacks nd bagman. It reflects poorly on him. Mulroney knew how the play his cards and won an massive majority over patronage appointments.

Non of which makes the general public feel reassured that they are in good hands.

madmax · August 28, 2009

Is your spew supposed to be constructive? Or just an eruption of vitriol?
_[copyed.]

Enjoy. Facts are hard to swallow. These are party hacks and they will have a comfy Senate Position. Isn't it great that the tax payer can feed Diane Finley and her husband. Life is so hard for them. Its tough to get by in a region that is beset with high unemployment. But don't worry, they'll be ok. Harpers watching out for them.

madmax · August 28, 2009

Nobody's yet answered my question: Why would a Senator vote to diminish his own job security?

Because they are looking out for the best interests of all Canadians and our country. Or the vote gets held when their isn't sober Senator to be found.

madmax · August 28, 2009

Perhaps Harper's strategy is to piss as many people off as possible with blatent appointment of political hacks so he can turn around say "if you don't like I do have another option...."

He did the same thing last year. This is the gift that keeps on giving. The Reform Element died when the Reform MPs took those gold plated pensions. This is the New Blue Party of Entitlements.

Topaz · August 28, 2009

If Harper is going to put his friends in the senate then who is going to do the "dirty work" for him? Oh yeah, Reynolds is still out there isn't he and a couple of former cabinet ministers.

Smallc · August 28, 2009

I can see where there is a very valid agument that it does not require Constitutional changes to effectively introduce an 8 year term

It should, because such a change without other changes would be an instant disaster.

g_bambino · August 28, 2009

These are party hacks and they will have a comfy Senate Position. Isn't it great that the tax payer can feed Diane Finley and her husband. Life is so hard for them.

Vitriol it is, then.

g_bambino · August 28, 2009

It should, because such a change without other changes would be an instant disaster.

It would seem the 8 year limits would require an constitutional amendment; specifically, to the Constitution Act 1965. Otherwise, once appointed, a Senator remains in office until he or she reaches age 75, regardless of what Harper pretends.

jdobbin · August 28, 2009

More likely a long term strategy to undermine the credibility of the senate and stoke the appetite for reform. It is also possible that he can't find 'qualified' conservative minded people willing to take the job so he is reduced to appointing hacks (i.e. I suspect many people who would be received as good candidates are not interested in the job and don't care about the money).

I can't imagine anyone was asked to sit as independent senators, can you? For that alone some would not be interested.

BTW - I agree with you and bambino that changing senator terms will require an amendment and there is no way that Harper's cannot know this. So he must be up to something else.

I'm not convinced that some Tories don't believe they can't do this unilaterally.

It is also possible that tory insiders have decided that they don't want to be martyrs on an issue that the public does not care that much about (i.e. they can't leave the seats vacant and if they cannot find enough star candidates to fill the seats then you have to turn to your buddies).

I think there is some evidence that party insiders have told Harper that appointing a few friends is a good way to have a resource for the party within government.

Mr.Canada · August 28, 2009

Again I find it hilarious everytime PM Harper does something that will make the liberals nuts. He must joke about this with his inner circle..."watch Laytons mustache go nuts when I announce this"...lol.

If it was Ignotieff announcing this it would be fine and applauded for being so progressive...

jdobbin · August 28, 2009

One step at a time - term limits can be argued in the Supreme Court, if necessary. The rest is very tough.

And they will be. If Harper did get his majority in the Senate, he could push the law through both Houses but some provinces have said they would challenge this unilateralism. I can even see some Tory Senator now saying years from now that the law would not be binding on him.

Given that it took an amendment for term limits, I think it will be hard not to have an amendment for something so far sweeping.

A law in made in Parliament is not an amendment. I think Quebec for one would fight it. It infringes on the rights the believe they have in the amending formula.